ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 172 of 398
« First < 72122162168169170171172 173174175176182222272 > Last »
Lenny "The Cool" Lounge>Frank Clark fucking sucks
RealSNR 02:33 PM 09-15-2019
Guy has done NOTHING in two games. Barely any pressures to speak of against trash OTs.

Yeah, I'm in bitchy gameday mode. Don't care. I'm tired of paying out the ass for defensive players who don't make plays.

At least Justin Houston could dominate against bad teams after we paid him.
[Reply]
BossChief 10:42 PM 12-01-2019
I just hope his shoulder injury isn’t nerves. A stinger could be worse for someone with nerve issues.

We need a disruptive Frank Clark for us to win it all, imo.
[Reply]
Sweet Daddy Hate 10:47 PM 12-01-2019
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:

Some people are just slow learners, I guess...
This is the foundation of my hate, hands down. The only difference is, what YOU call "slow learning", I call "REFUSAL to learn".

[QUOTE=RunKC;14628722]Clark has been hurt most of this season unfortunately, but no he or any player was ever going to be worth that deal and thatís why you should be pissed from the moment it was made. It was a no win situation.

Both him and Chris Jones have not met expectations this year[/0]

^^^^ Pitiful deflection to Jones. Pure shite.

Originally Posted by lewdog:
Dude, youíre one of the biggest homers now. Nothing is wrong ever (which isnít true).

Youíre becoming BossChief 2.0. Itís sickening.
Like fucking hell he is; BC is far more objective.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 08:02 AM 12-02-2019
Clark played 33 snaps last night.

The Raiders ran the ball on 20 of them, and most of them away from him.

You just can't judge anything off this game at all.

Quit the fucking knee jerking.
[Reply]
TEX 08:18 AM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Clark played 33 snaps last night.

The Raiders ran the ball on 20 of them, and most of them away from him.

You just can't judge anything off this game at all.

Quit the ****ing knee jerking.

I think you could make Matt Cassel seem like he played well...

Let's see - "Out of 20 pass plays, Matt only had 5 real opportunities to throw the ball b/c the WR's were covered 10 times and 5 times the OL was aids.

AmIright? :-)

Just messing with ya, but dang, it sure seems like you go out of your way to defend Clark.
[Reply]
srvy 08:24 AM 12-02-2019
All those slogans on the walls in Arrowhead locker room they need to add another. Never ever trade with Pete Carroll again!
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 08:30 AM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by TEX:
I think you could make Matt Cassel seem like he played well...

Let's see - "Out of 20 pass plays, Matt only had 5 real opportunities to throw the ball b/c the WR's were covered 10 times and 5 times the OL was aids.

AmIright? :-)

Just messing with ya, but dang, it sure seems like you go out of your way to defend Clark.
This is not 'going out of my way.'

Anyone with half a brain can see:

1. The majority of snaps were running plays away from him because the Raiders would rather not run to his side.

2. When they did, other than one run, it was hugely ineffective.

3. He barely had any real pass rush opportunities. He lost a couple of those snaps, affected the play on a couple of others that wound up a sack and an INT, and that's it.

There's nothing to bitch about here, other than the fact that he may, indeed, be a brokedick if he can't go this week.

If he comes out and buries Brady in the turf of Gilette this week no one will give a fuck about a handful of snaps against the Raiders where he had limited opportunity.

Which is exactly what happened.
[Reply]
DJ's left nut 08:37 AM 12-02-2019
Wow - crediting Clark w/ the sack, eh? Because he was on the field when Jones won his rep, I guess.

Like I said - Clay just playing the hits on the Frank Clark excuses track. "He's just doing his job" and "He's hurt..."

Always an excuse for the guy.

And remember - the criticism of Clark isn't an indictment of Clark, it's an indictment of Veach. And when the guy can't make it through a game...again...that's absolutely a problem.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 08:38 AM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And remember - the criticism of Clark isn't an indictment of Clark, it's an indictment of Veach. And when the guy can't make it through a game...again...that's absolutely a problem.
We can agree here.
[Reply]
TEX 09:58 AM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
This is not 'going out of my way.'

Anyone with half a brain can see:

1. The majority of snaps were running plays away from him because the Raiders would rather not run to his side.

2. When they did, other than one run, it was hugely ineffective.

3. He barely had any real pass rush opportunities. He lost a couple of those snaps, affected the play on a couple of others that wound up a sack and an INT, and that's it.

There's nothing to bitch about here, other than the fact that he may, indeed, be a brokedick if he can't go this week.

If he comes out and buries Brady in the turf of Gilette this week no one will give a **** about a handful of snaps against the Raiders where he had limited opportunity.

Which is exactly what happened.
Correct, Nobody will care. Also correct if he can't go, he's a brokedick. I think he's that now.
[Reply]
RunKC 10:49 AM 12-02-2019
Frank Clark missed 2 games in 4 years in Seattle. He played through some shit there and got 10, 9 and 13 sacks in the 3 years that he became a starter.
He was on the field and available to his team over 95% of the time.

It sucks that he has had injury concerns this year but I don’t see how that is Veach’s fault. Shit happens in this game to players eventually. I get the compensation argument bc I agree with it, but this dude was not a brokedick in Seattle.

You guys are acting like this guy is Dee Ford, who has had very bad injury concerns dating back to college.
[Reply]
bsp4444 12:05 PM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Clark played 33 snaps last night.

The Raiders ran the ball on 20 of them, and most of them away from him.

You just can't judge anything off this game at all.

Quit the ****ing knee jerking.
Gblowfish saw things differently. Said they ran at Clark a lot in the first half.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 12:31 PM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by bsp4444:
Gblowfish saw things differently. Said they ran at Clark a lot in the first half.
Well, he was wrong. They were running right at Oakafor.

They did run at Clark on the long run, which tends to stick in people's minds.
[Reply]
dlphg9 12:52 PM 12-02-2019
Come on Clay, youre the king of Gifs and you have the perfect opportunity to prove us wrong and GIF up all the running plays he was on the field, but you didn't. I think that's bbecause you're making shit up.
[Reply]
Hammock Parties 01:04 PM 12-02-2019
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Come on Clay, youre the king of Gifs and you have the perfect opportunity to prove us wrong and GIF up all the running plays he was on the field, but you didn't. I think that's bbecause you're making shit up.
go watch the video yourself

frank NEVER lined up on the offensive right side

not ONCE

he played RDE the whole game and the Raiders almost exclusively ran middle or right, away from him, while he was in the game

i mean, it's been that way almost the whole year, but go ahead and think something changed to fit this bullshit narrative
[Reply]
O.city 01:06 PM 12-02-2019

Josh Jacobs directional run chart versus the #Chiefs pic.twitter.com/5nrjKQyWQs

— Nick Jacobs (@Jacobs71) December 2, 2019

[Reply]
Page 172 of 398
« First < 72122162168169170171172 173174175176182222272 > Last »
Up